CHARITY & NFP LAW UPDATE

JANUARY 2018

EDITOR: TERRANCE S. CARTER ASSISTANT EDITORS: NANCY E. CLARIDGE

RYAN M. PRENDERGAST AND ADRIEL N. CLAYTON

Updating Charities and Not-For-Profits on recent legal developments and risk management considerations

JANUARY 2018

SECTIONS HIGHLIGHTS

Recent Publications and News Releases 2

In the Press 18

Recent Events and Presentations19

Upcoming Events and Presentations 19

Contributors 20

When Waivers Fail: The Impact of Imprecise Language and Resulting Liability

CRA News Updates to T4063, Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes Implementation of Proposed Changes to VDP New Video – Who is the True Donor of this Gift?

Legislation Update

Corporate Update Canada Corporations Act Provisions and Regulations Repealed Ontario Government Targets Early 2020 for ONCA Proclamation Additional Changes to OCA in Force on January 13, 2018 Corporate Documents Available for Purchase from Corporations

Canada

Jewish Day School Teachers Held Ineligible for Clergy Residence Deduction

GST/HST Ruling on Qualifying NPOs and the Public Service Body Rebate

Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 Draft Privacy Regulations Posted

Delaying the Enforcement of Your Copyright May Cost You

House Committee Releases Report on CASL

Amendments to Ontario Workplace Safety Legislation in Force

Alberta Court Denies Challenge Brought Six Years After Passing of Bylaw

Minister Prohibited from Dealing in Mutual Funds with Congregation

New Guide Published on Fundraising under Australian Consumer Law

The 2018 Ottawa Region Charity and Not-for-Profit Law™ Seminar Hosted by Carters Professional Corporation in Ottawa, Ontario,

on Thursday February 15, 2018 Guest Speakers include the Honourable Justice David Brown, Court of Appeal of Ontario

and Tony Manconi, Director General of the Charities Directorate of the CRA Brochure and online registration are available on our website.

Get on Our Mailing List: To automatically receive the free monthly Charity Law Update,

Click here or send an email to info@carters.ca with “Subscribe” in the subject line.

PAGE 2 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND NEWS RELEASES

When Waivers Fail: The Impact of Imprecise Language and Resulting Liability

By Sean S. Carter and Barry W. Kwasniewski

On September 28, 2017, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Anderson v

Confederation College. The decision involved a summary judgment motion by the defendant, a registered

charity and a college of applied arts and technology, seeking an order to dismiss the claim by the plaintiff

(“Anderson”) on the basis that Anderson had signed an “Informed Consent Form for Physical Activities”

(the “Consent Form”) that barred his claim. In its decision, the court determined that the liability waiver

wording in the Consent Form did not bar Anderson’s claim. This Bulletin reviews this decision, as well

as the importance of properly drafted liability waivers and risk management practices for charities and

not-for-profits.

For the balance of this Bulletin, please see Charity & NFP Law Bulletin No. 414.

CRA News

By Ryan M. Prendergast

Updates to T4063, Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes

The Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) updated its T4063, Registering a Charity for Income Tax Purposes

on January 12, 2018. While many of the changes are administrative, the CRA has updated its answer to

the “Will the Charities Directorate accept draft governing documents” section. While the T4063 had

previously stated that the Charities Directorate would review draft governing documents on a one-time

basis, it has been amended to state that the Charities Directorate will not review applications submitted

with draft governing documents, and that the CRA will treat such applications as incomplete and will

return them to the applicant. The amendments also clarify that for an application to be considered

complete, certified governing documents must be included with the submission. These changes conform

with the CRA’s amended policy that it will no longer review applications submitted with draft governing

documents as of July 1, 2017, as outlined in our June 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update.

Implementation of Proposed Changes to VDP

In our August 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update, it was reported that the Ministry of National Revenue

announced changes to the CRA’s Voluntary Disclosures Program (“VDP”) to take effect as of January 1,

PAGE 3 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

2018. These changes, which narrow the eligibility criteria for the VDP, were outlined in two proposals,

Draft Information Circular - IC00-1R6 – Voluntary Disclosures Program and Draft GST/HST

Memorandum 16.5 – Voluntary Disclosures Program (the “Proposals”). On December 15, 2017, the CRA

published an announcement indicating that changes to the VDP would be effective March 1, 2018 rather

than January 1, and that to be considered under the current VDP program, the CRA must receive

applications on or before February 28, 2018. The announcement includes links to revised versions of the

Proposals for IC00-1R6 and Memorandum 16.5. The VDP has application to non-profit organizations

(“NPOs”). However, it has only limited application to registered charities in the context of employee

source deductions and Harmonized Sales Tax (“HST”).

New Video – Who is the True Donor of this Gift?

On December 4, 2017, the CRA published a new video, Who is the True Donor of this Gift?. As charities

cannot issue official donation receipts unless they know who is the true donor, the video discusses how to

determine the true donor in order to issue the corresponding donation receipt. In this regard, the video

discusses various methods to identify individual and corporate donors, and briefly outlines issues that may

arise when trying to identify the true donors. For example, the video explains when receiving a cheque

from a joint account showing the name of two individuals, the receipt can be in one name or both names

regardless of who signed the cheque. Another example provided is that of a corporation collecting funds

from its employees and making a donation to a charity; in that case, the charity may not issue a donation

receipt to the corporation, but may issue individual donation receipts to each of the employees who

donated the funds for the corresponding amount of each employee donation, provided the charity is

provided with that information, including each employee’s address. Other examples include anonymous

donations and cash donations.

Legislation Update

By Terrance S. Carter

Senate Adopts Motion to Appoint Special Committee on Charitable Sector

On January 30, 2018, the Senate of Canada debated and adopted a motion to appoint a Special Committee

on the Charitable Sector (“Special Committee”) to “examine the impact of federal and provincial laws and

policies governing charities, nonprofit organizations, foundations, and other similar groups; and to

examine the impact of the voluntary sector in Canada.” The motion, as adopted, states that the Special

Committee is to be composed of nine members and has “the power to send for persons, papers and records;

PAGE 4 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the

committee.” The Special Committee will be empowered to report from time to time, to submit a final

report of its findings on or before December 31, 2018, and may publicize its findings up to 60 days after

its final report is tabled.

Bill C-63, Budget Implementation Act No. 2, Receives Royal Assent

On December 14, 2017, Bill C-63, Budget Implementation Act No. 2 (“Bill C-63”) received Royal Assent.

Bill C-63 contains amendments to the Income Tax Act (“ITA”), dealing with ecological gifts as proposed

in the 2017 Federal Budget, and applies in respect of gifts made after March 21, 2017. Bill C-63 also

contains amendments to the Excise Tax Act (“ETA”) regarding the calculation of net tax for charities. Bill

C-63 was discussed in the October 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update. The 2017 Federal Budget was

discussed in Charity & NFP Law Bulletin No. 399.

Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), Receives Royal Assent

On December 12, 2017, Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief), amending the Criminal

Code provisions dealing with the offence of mischief relating to religious property, received Royal Assent

and was brought into force immediately. The amendment modifies the offence by extending the definition

of “mischief relating to property” to encompass not only religious property, but also educational

institutions, community centres and senior residences, amongst others, used by an “identifiable group”.

Also, in coordination with Bill C-16 which received Royal Assent on June 19, 2017, as reviewed in the

August 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update, the amendment also introduces “gender identity or expression”

with regard to bias, prejudice or hate motivating the offence.

Ontario Bill 155, Life Leases Act, 2017

On September 20, 2017, Bill 155, Life Leases Act, 2017 (“Bill 155”), was introduced in the Legislative

Assembly of Ontario and since October 5, 2017 has been with the Standing Committee on Social Policy.

If passed, Bill 155 will be the first piece of legislation in Ontario dealing with life leases, a form of

leasehold interest that many senior housing charities and not-for-profits have adopted in recent years.

Ontario Bill 193, Rowan’s Law (Concussion Safety), 2017

On December 14, 2017, the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport introduced Bill 193, Rowan’s Law

(Concussion Safety), 2017 (“Bill 193”) to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Bill 193 follows the

recommendations set out in the report of the Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee released in September

2017, which was discussed most recently in the September 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update. If passed,

PAGE 5 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Bill 193 will provide Canada’s first framework to govern concussion prevention, detection, management

and awareness in amateur competitive sport and schools, requiring that sports organizations, defined “as

persons or entities that carry out, for profit or otherwise, a prescribed activity in connection with an

amateur competitive sport and that satisfy such other criteria as may be prescribed”, comply with a number

of requirements. In addition to proclaiming “Rowan's Law Day” to be held every year on the last

Wednesday of September, Bill 193 will also amend the Education Act by adding a new section authorizing

the Minister of Education to establish and require school boards, as well as private schools, to comply

with new policies and guidelines.

Ontario Bill 160, Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act, 2017 Receives Royal

Assent

Ontario Bill 160, Strengthening Quality and Accountability for Patients Act, 2017, affecting a number of

Acts regulating healthcare in Ontario received Royal Assent on December 12, 2017, with the majority of

the provisions coming into force on proclamation. For further information, see the October 2017 Charity

& NFP Law Update.

Amendments to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act now in force

On December 14, 2017, Bill 177, Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2017 received Royal

Assent. This brought amendments to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act into force on

proclamation, introducing important changes affecting employers in the province, including charities and

not-for-profits. For more information, see Amendments to Ontario Workplace Safety Legislation in Force,

below.

Ontario Regulation 79/10 under Long-Term Care Homes Act now in force

Amendments to Ontario Regulation 79/10 under the Long-Term Care Homes Act are now in force since

January 1, 2018. Further to the proposal, previously discussed in the September 2017 Charity & NFP Law

Update, the amendments deal with reunification priority access beds (sections 206.1-206.2) and the

disclosure of personal information (section 304.1).

Amendments to CYFSA and New Regulations Proposed under the Child, Youth and Family Services

Act, 2017

On December 4, 2017, the Ministry of Children and Youth Services released a set of draft regulations

under Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”) concerning personal information. Part X

of CYFSA establishes a new consent-based regime for the collection, use and disclosure of clients’

PAGE 6 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

personal information by child, youth and family service providers and will have application to charities

and not-for-profits that qualify as “service providers” under the CYFSA when it comes into force. For

more information, see Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 Draft Privacy Regulations posted

below.

Quebec Bill 146 Implementing Fiscal Measures Affecting Charities

On December 2, 2017, Quebec Bill 146, An Act to give effect mainly to fiscal measures announced in the

Budget Speech delivered on 28 March 2017 (“Bill 146”), received Royal Assent and came into force. The

explanatory notes state that Bill 146 makes amendments to the Quebec Taxation Act and the Act respecting

the Québec sales tax “similar to those made to the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act by federal bills

assented to in 2014, 2015 and 2016.” Amendments affecting charities include new section 7.18.2 of the

Taxation Act permitting registered charities and registered amateur athletic associations to hold an interest

as a member in a partnership without being considered to be carrying on a business. This corresponds with

similar amendments that were made to the ITA in 2016 after being announced in the April 2015 federal

budget and which were discussed in Charity Law Bulletin No. 363.

Saskatchewan Bill 55, The Provincial Health Authority Act

On December 4, 2017, Bill 53, The Provincial Health Authority Act (“Bill 53”) was proclaimed and came

into force, with the exception of certain provisions. Bill 53 repealed The Regional Health Services Act

with consequential amendments to a number of other acts. Because Bill 53 consolidates the operations of

12 former Regional Health Authorities into the Saskatchewan Health Authority, section 3-4(8) of Bill 53

states that any foundation “established with respect to a former regional health authority may, subject to

any restrictions placed on the funds by donors, continue to use its funds as the foundation considers

appropriate (a) to benefit any facility located in the health region associated with the former regional health

authority; (b) to provide health services in the health region associated with the former regional health

authority; or (c) for other charitable purposes for which the foundation was established.”

Corporate Update

By Theresa L.M. Man

Canada Corporations Act Provisions and Regulations Repealed

On December 30, 2017, regulations under the Canada Corporations Act (“CCA”) (Canada Corporations

Regulations) were repealed. This was followed by the repeal of the remaining provisions of the CCA on

PAGE 7 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

December 31, 2017. All federal not-for-profit corporations incorporated under Part II of the CCA have

now either transitioned to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act (“CNCA”) or have been dissolved.

The repeal of the CCA was effected by Order Fixing December 31, 2017 as the Day on which Certain

Provisions of the Act Come into Force dated December 15, 2017, which was published in the Canada

Gazette on January 10, 2018. As well, the Canada Corporations Regulations were repealed as a result of

the publication of Regulations Repealing the Canada Corporations Regulations in the Canada Gazette.

Part II CCA corporations dissolved for failure to transition to the CNCA can apply to be revived and

transitioned into the CNCA in one step through Form 4032: Articles of Revival (transition). For more

information see Corporations Canada’s Revival (transition) guide.

Ontario Government Targets Early 2020 for ONCA Proclamation

Following the Royal Assent of Bill 154, Cutting Unnecessary Red Tape Act, 2017 (“Bill 154”) on

November 14, 2017 the Government of Ontario stated on its webpage that it is upgrading technology to

support the changes implemented by Bill 154 and to improve service delivery. It has stated that it is

working to bring the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, 2010 (“ONCA”) into force as early as

possible, with a target of early 2020. This gives not-for-profit corporations at least 24 months’ notice

before the ONCA comes into force. Further details will be provided by the Ministry of Government and

Consumer Services closer to when the ONCA comes into force. Following proclamation, Ontario not-for-

profit corporations will have three years to transition to the ONCA to make the necessary changes to their

governing documents.

Additional Changes to OCA in Force on January 13, 2018

A number of changes to the Ontario Corporations Act (“OCA”) became effective on January 13, 2018, by

way of Bill 154. Other changes to the OCA already became effective on November 14, 2017. These

changes were introduced to allow Ontario Part III OCA not-for-profit corporations to enjoy some of the

modernized rules contained in the ONCA before it is proclaimed, and to provide more flexibility to their

operations. These changes are discussed in greater detail in Charity & NFP Law Bulletin No. 412.

Corporate Documents Available for Purchase from Corporations Canada

On December 12, 2017, Corporations Canada announced that uncertified copies of corporate documents

filed under the Canada Business Corporations Act or the CNCA are now available for purchase from their

Online Filing Centre. Uncertified corporate documents can be ordered by email, mail or fax, and cost

$1.00 per page. Orders are processed within one business day.

PAGE 8 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Jewish Day School Teachers Held Ineligible for Clergy Residence Deduction

By Jacqueline M. Demczur

In a decision released December 18, 2017, the Tax Court of Canada in Lichtman v The Queen considered

whether three ordained rabbis (“Appellants”) teaching Judaic studies in a Jewish elementary day school

were “ministering to a…congregation” in order to be eligible for the clergy residence deduction (the

“Deduction”) under s. 8(1)(c)(ii)(B) of the ITA. This Deduction allows qualifying individuals to deduct

from their personal income a specified amount in relation to their housing, whether rented or owned, when

filing their personal income tax return.

In order to qualify for the Deduction, the court stated that an individual is required to meet a two-fold test

for status and function set out under s. 8(1)(c) of the ITA. The status test requires the individual to be a

member of the clergy or of a religious order, or a regular minister of a religious denomination (a “Clergy

Member”). In this regard, the Appellants met the first part of the test as members of clergy. The function

test asks whether the individual is performing one of the functions outlined in s. 8(1)(c)(ii) of the ITA. In

this regard, as s. 8(1)(c)(ii)(B) allows for the Deduction where a Clergy Member is “ministering to a

diocese, parish or congregation,” the issue was whether the Appellants’ activities and functions could be

considered “ministering” and whether the students could be considered a “congregation.”

In its consideration of whether the Appellants were “ministering”, the court held that “a rabbi teaching

Torah to Orthodox Jewish children [would need to represent] a specialized ministry within the context of

Orthodox Judaism,” and that the students would have to constitute a congregation for the purposes of s.

8(1)(c). Through its review of expert evidence, the court concluded that there was no consensus on the

spirituality of Torah education or that learning Torah “is any more of a spiritual or religious act than it is

an academic and intellectual pursuit”. Further, while it noted that rabbis may engage in a variety of

specializations, including education, it held that in contrast to a music minister at a Pentecostal church,

which was found to be a specialized ministry in Austin v The Queen, the Appellants’ activities did not

amount to a specialized ministry within the context of Orthodox Jewish ministry. Of note, the Appellants’

employment contracts and work duties, which stipulated that they were employed as teachers of Judaic

studies at the day school, were contrasted with the activities and duties of a synagogue rabbi, and the

Appellants’ duties were found to be those that “would be typically required of any teacher in a typical

school setting.”

PAGE 9 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Concerning whether the students constituted a “congregation”, the court reviewed the ordinary meaning

of “congregation” and found that, in the context of Orthodox Jewish rabbis, the term was used in relation

to synagogues. In its review of legislation and case law, it held that the term had to be read contextually

in reference to a “diocese, parish or congregation”, as outlined in s. 8(1)(c)(ii) of the ITA. It held that these

three words “share the common element of regularized religious worship in an organized institutional

setting,” and that elementary school students gathered for Jewish religious education and instruction were

not a congregation in this regard. The court also took a purposive approach to the ITA provision,

concluding that the purpose, history and general scheme of the ITA further supports the conclusion that

the students, in this case, were not a congregation, and that teachers of religious studies could not be

considered to be ministering to the students. Based on its findings, the court dismissed the appeal, holding

that the Appellants were not eligible for the Deduction.

While the s. 8(1)(c) two-fold status and function test is not new, this case is a good example of the court’s

application of the test to determine an individual’s eligibility for the Deduction. In this regard, individuals

applying for the Deduction under s. 8(1)(c)(ii)(B) should be aware that they may need to satisfy the CRA

and, if applicable, satisfy the court that they are Clergy Members, that their activities constitute ministry

and that those to whom they minister can be considered a congregation.

GST/HST Ruling on Qualifying NPOs and the Public Service Body Rebate

By Theresa L.M. Man

On January 4, 2018, the CRA released a GST/HST ruling (CRA document #176875) concerning

qualifying non-profit organizations (“Qualifying NPOs”) and the public service body rebate (“PSB

Rebate”) under the ETA. In the ruling, the CRA was asked to clarify whether an organization was a

Qualifying NPO and if so, whether it was entitled to claim the PSB Rebate and at what percentage. The

organization in question was a corporation without share capital that was resident in Ontario and was not

a government, a specified crown agent under s. 123(1) of the ETA, or a selected public service body. It

received its funding through government appropriations which is not consideration for a supply.

In the ruling, the CRA stated that in order to be a Qualifying NPO under s. 259(2) of the ETA, the

organization must be a “non-profit organization” as defined under s. 123(1). In this regard, it is a question

of fact whether an organization meets the definition for a non-profit organization at any particular time.

As well, whether the organization is operating for a purpose other than profit must be determined on an

PAGE 10 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

ongoing basis. Further, to be a Qualifying NPO, the organization must receive at least 40% of its funding

through government funding, which is determined in accordance with s. 3 of the Public Service Body

Rebate (GST/HST) Regulations.

With respect to the PSB Rebate, the CRA stated that an organization that meets the requirements to be a

Qualifying NPO on the last day of their claim period or of their fiscal year that includes that claim period

is entitled to the PSB Rebate under s. 259(3), subject to exclusions that do not apply in this case for reasons

not mentioned. In this regard, a Qualifying NPO that is not a selected public service body (as defined

under s. 259(1) of the ETA) is entitled to claim PSB Rebates on the non-creditable tax charged in respect

of properties or services (other than prescribed properties or services) for the claim period which is 50%

of the goods and services tax (or the federal part of the Ontario harmonized sales tax). The calculation is

clarified in GST/HST Memorandum 13.5, Non-creditable Tax Charged. In addition, a Qualifying NPO

resident only in Ontario is also entitled to PSB Rebates of 82% of the provincial non-creditable HST

charged in respect of property or a service (other than a prescribed property or service) for the claim period

regardless of in which province the HST was paid or payable. More information is available on the PSB

Rebate in Info Sheet GI-184, Public Service Bodies’ Rebate for Qualifying Non-profit Organizations

Resident Only in Ontario.

While CRA rulings provide an indication of the CRA’s position on how portions of the ETA apply to a

specific fact situation, charities and not-for-profits should keep in mind that they are only binding with

respect to those specific facts disclosed to the CRA.

Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 Draft Privacy Regulations Posted

By Esther Shainblum

As reported in the August 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update, Bill 89, Supporting Children, Youth and

Families Act, 2017, which contains the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”) in

Schedule 1, received Royal Assent on June 1, 2017. Part X of CYFSA establishes a new consent-based

regime for the collection, use and disclosure of clients’ personal information by child, youth and family

service providers. Although CYFSA is not expected to come into force until the spring of 2018 at the

earliest, on December 4, 2017 the Ministry of Children and Youth Services (the “Ministry”) released a set

of draft regulations under CYFSA concerning personal information (the “Draft Regulations”), which were

open for comment until January 26, 2018.

PAGE 11 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

The Draft Regulations address a number of matters that CYFSA had left to be prescribed by regulation

and create a number of new obligations that will have to be satisfied by entities that meet the definition of

“service provider” under CYFSA, including charities and not-for-profits. The definition of “service

provider” under CYFSA includes the Minister of Children and Youth Services (the “Minister”), holders

of adoption or residential licenses under CYFSA and persons or entities that provide a service funded

under the Act (“Service Providers”). Some of the requirements set out in the Draft Regulations will require

Service Providers to change or improve their day-to-day practices and to gather statistical information

concerning their privacy practices and procedures.

Section 8 of the Draft Regulations provides details of what information Service Providers will be required

to provide to clients whose privacy has been breached pursuant to section 308(2) of CYFSA, including

plain language descriptions of what occurred and the steps taken by the Service Provider to mitigate the

breach and prevent future losses. Section 9 of the Draft Regulations sets out the circumstances in which

Service Providers must notify the Minister and the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (the

“Commissioner”) of a breach pursuant to s. 308(3) of CYFSA. These circumstances include the use or

disclosure of personal information without authority, theft of personal information and significant

breaches such as those involving highly sensitive personal information or large volumes of personal

information.

Section 10 of the Draft Regulations sets out the details of the requirements for the secure retention, transfer

and disposal of records of clients’ personal information (pursuant to s. 309(1)(b) of CYFSA). Service

Providers must take reasonable steps to protect records containing clients’ personal information from theft,

loss, or unauthorized use or disclosure, to ensure that the personal information in a record cannot be

reconstructed or retrieved (this requirement would require Service Providers to, for example, permanently

wipe or physically destroy hard drives and flash drives and not just erase them or delete files) and to

document that a record has been disposed of in a manner that does not actually document any of the

personal information it contained. Section 10 also requires Service Providers to put in place and comply

with a detailed records retention policy and prohibits Service Providers from transferring a record

containing a client’s personal information to a new Service Provider unless the new Service Provider has

a records retention policy in place for the type of record being transferred.

Section 11 of the Draft Regulations will now require Service Providers to gather and file annually with

the Commissioner specific data such as the number of requests received for access to or correction of

PAGE 12 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

records in the previous year, the number of times it granted or refused such request and within which time

frames, and details concerning the number and type of privacy breaches (losses, thefts, unauthorized uses

and disclosures and so on) that occurred in that year.

Charities and not-for-profits that are Service Providers under CYFSA should continue to monitor the

status of CYFSA as well as the Draft Regulations. In particular, when CYFSA is proclaimed, and if Draft

Regulations are enacted, Service Providers will have significant requirements to comply with under the

new legislation.

Delaying the Enforcement of Your Copyright May Cost You

By Sepal Bonni

On October 31, 2017, the Federal Court released its decision in 907687 Ontario Inc. (International

Institute of Travel) v 1472359 Ontario Ltd (IBT College of Business Travel & Tourism Technology). In

this case, International Institute of Travel (“IIT”), a private career college, alleged that IBT College of

Business Travel & Tourism Technology (“IBT”), another private career college, had improperly used its

course material. As a result, on January 15, 2013, IIT commenced a copyright infringement action against

IBT.

Although the Federal Court held that IIT had not met its burden of proving that IBT had infringed its

copyright, the court held that the infringement action was time-barred as it was not commenced within the

three year limitation period provided for in the Copyright Act. In this regard, s. 43.1(1) of the Copyright

Act provides that a copyright infringement action must be commenced within three years. However, there

are subtle important nuances to when this three year period begins. If the copyright owner knew or could

reasonably have been expected to know of the infringement, then the three year limitation period begins

from the time at which the copyright owner knew or was reasonably expected to have known of the

infringement. On the other hand, in situations where the copyright owner did not know and could not be

reasonably expected to know, then the three year limitation period begins at the time when the copyright

owner first knew or could have been reasonably expected to know of the infringement.

In this case, the court held that although IIT did not have actual knowledge of the alleged infringement

until 2011, a demand letter sent by IIT’s legal counsel to IBT in 2002 established that the infringement

was discoverable with reasonable diligence in 2002, and as a result, the action was statute-barred.

PAGE 13 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Charities and not-for-profits should beware that where a limitations defence in a copyright infringement

action is raised, the copyright owner is required to prove that the three year limitation period has not

lapsed. Charities and not-for-profits must therefore take reasonable steps to determine if copyright is being

infringed and be vigilant in policing unlawful use of their copyright to ensure a copyright infringement

action is not time-barred. Further, a demand or cease and desist letter sent can be deemed by courts as

evidence that an infringement was known by the copyright owner and would therefore mark the beginning

of the three year period, unless there is evidence that the copyright owner had earlier knowledge of the

infringement. As such, charities and not-for-profits that know of or even suspect copyright infringement

should act immediately to enforce their rights before the limitation period expires.

House Committee Releases Report on CASL

By Ryan M. Prendergast

On December 13, 2017, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (the “Committee”)

presented its report “Canada's Anti-Spam Legislation: Clarifications are in Order” (the “Report”). The

Committee conducted a statutory review of Canada’s anti-spam legislation (“CASL”) between September

26, 2017 and December 12, 2017, the results of which are set out in the Report.

Of note to charities and not-for-profits, recommendation 8 in the Report states that:

The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada clarify the

application of the Act and its regulations to charities and non-profit organizations

to ensure that the legislation is clear and understandable to these organizations and

do no create unintended costs of compliance.

The Committee heard various witnesses from the not-for-profit sector, including Imagine Canada, which

was summarized in the November/December 2017 Charity & NFP Law Update. The recommendation in

the Report does not go as far as some witnesses proposed to the Committee in exempting registered

charities from the requirements of CASL, or creating broader exceptions for other not-for-profits.

However, it is hoped that the government will review CASL and its general application to the not-for-

profit sector.

The Report also includes recommendations with general application which would also be of interest to

charities and not-for-profits that might be involved in sending commercial electronic message (“CEMs”).

These include a recommendation that the government clarify the definition of CEM, “electronic address”

PAGE 14 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

as well as the provisions pertaining to “implied consent” and “express consent” under CASL. The Report

demonstrates that several years after CASL coming into force, its application is far from clear. The

Committee’s conclusion recognizes this fact by stating, “While improving guidance and education should

be a priority moving forward, it can only achieve so much. The Act [CASL] and its regulations require

clarifications to reduce the cost of compliance and better focus enforcement.”

Amendments to Ontario Workplace Safety Legislation in Force

By Barry W. Kwasniewski

On December 14, 2017, Ontario’s omnibus Bill 177, Stronger, Fairer Ontario Act (Budget Measures),

2017 (“Bill 177”) received Royal Assent, implementing certain measures outlined in Ontario’s 2017

Budget, as well as enacting and amending other Ontario statutes. Among these amendments are changes

to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”) contained under Schedule 30 of Bill 177.

These amendments are intended to enhance protections for workers, including those employed by charities

and not-for-profits in Ontario.

These amendments include changes to the OHSA’s sentencing regime by increasing maximum fine limits

from $25,000 for individuals and $500,000 for corporations to $100,000 and $1,500,000 respectively.

Individuals convicted of an offence under the OHSA may also be subject to up to 12 months imprisonment.

Where the OHSA previously required charges to be laid within one year of an incident, the time limit to

allow for prosecution has been changed from one year from the date of the offence to one year from the

date an inspector becomes aware of an alleged offence, allowing for charges to be laid more than a year

after the occurrence of an incident. Additionally, as a result of Bill 177, employers that do not own their

workplace are now required to notify an inspector appointed as a Director under the OHSA where a

committee or health and safety representative has identified potential structural inadequacies of a building,

structure, or any other part of a workplace, as a source of danger or hazard to workers.

Charities and not-for-profits need to continue to be aware of their health and safety obligations to workers

under the OHSA, particularly given the large increase to the maximum fines that are now in force.

PAGE 15 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Alberta Court Denies Challenge Brought Six Years After Passing of Bylaw

By Esther S.J. Oh

On January 5, 2018, the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta released its decision in Chinese Benevolent

Association of Edmonton v Chinatown Multilevel Care Foundation. In this case, the plaintiffs sought a

declaration that the general operating by-law adopted by the Chinatown Multilevel Care Foundation (the

“Foundation”) in June 2009, was invalid and that the governing bylaws were those adopted in 1985 (the

“1985 Bylaw”). The plaintiffs also sought a determination concerning who the members of the Foundation

were, together with a court order on other corporate matters.

The plaintiffs included Mei Hung and Frank Gee (who were members of the Foundation), as well as the

Chinese Benevolent Association (the “Association”) and directors of the Association. On the issue of who

had valid standing to bring the application, the court found that only Ms. Hung and Mr. Gee had standing

given their capacity as members of the Foundation. The court stated “There is no evidence to suggest that

the [Association] or its Directors have any material interest in the [Foundation] and therefore any direct

stake in the [Foundation]’s affairs such as to justify granting them standing....” The court also stated, “I

agree with the Defendants that merely applying for membership in the [Foundation] is not sufficient to

grant standing and that the board of directors was entitled to employ Selection Criteria in making

membership decisions for the [Foundation] as a private society.”

The Foundation was incorporated under the Alberta Societies Act and had registered its bylaw in 1985

under that Act. At a meeting held on June 16, 2009, (the “June 2009 Meeting”) members of the Foundation

passed a special resolution replacing the 1985 Bylaw with a new bylaw (the “2009 Bylaw”) which

introduced a number of changes, including limitations on the maximum number of members to ten and

limitations on the term of office for directors. The special resolution approving the 2009 Bylaw was signed

by nine of the Foundation’s members who were also directors of the board at the time.

Based on the evidence, including the individuals listed by name on the 2009 Bylaw filed with the Alberta

corporate registry, the court found that the members of the Foundation were the same as the directors at

the time of the June 2009 Meeting. Accordingly, the court found that only those ten individuals (who were

directors and members of the Foundation) were entitled to receive notice of and vote on the 2009 Bylaws.

The court also found that those ten members received adequate notice of the June 2009 Meeting. In that

regard, the court stated:

PAGE 16 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

While notice of the meeting was given by email or telephone, there is no evidence

that any of the members/directors in attendance at the meeting objected to the

adoption of the 2009 Bylaws or to the sufficiency of the notice given in relation to

that meeting until six years later in the case of the Plaintiffs, Mr. Gee and Ms.

Hung. The evidence establishes that the board was considering new bylaws, a

subcommittee had been appointed to review the bylaws, and at no time was there

any indication, certainly not from Mr. Gee and Ms. Hung, that the

members/directors did not understand the bylaws or the purpose of the June 2009

Meeting.

As such, given the court’s finding that the Foundation had ten members/directors who had received

sufficient notice, it found that the threshold 75% required for a special resolution under the Alberta

Societies Act was met and that the 2009 By-laws were therefore validly implemented. On this basis, the

court dismissed the Appellant’s claim.

This decision, in addition to confirming that simply applying for membership is not sufficient to grant

standing as members in a court proceeding, more importantly clarifies that directors and/or members who

wish to raise objections to the validity of a bylaw must do so on a timely basis and ensure that such

objections are properly documented.

Minister Prohibited from Dealing in Mutual Funds with Congregation

By Terrance S. Carter

On November 30, 2017, the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”) released its decision in Mason (Re)

to impose “restricted client terms and conditions” on a non-paid minister, lay leader, and mutual fund

dealer registrant (“Mason”), from acting as a mutual fund dealer with regard to members of his church’s

congregation or for their direct relatives. In this case, the OSC found that the work performed by Mason

at his church, which included performing prayers, delivering messages to the congregation, and visiting

the sick and persons in need, constituted an “outside business activity” within the meaning of Part 13.4 of

Companion Policy 31-103 – Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations.

Part 13.4 states that registrants must disclose, among other things, all officer and director positions and

any positions of influence, including “paid or unpaid roles with charitable, social or religious organizations

where the individual is in a position of power or influence and where the activity places the registered

individual in contact with clients or potential clients, including positions where the registrant handles

investments or monies of the organization.” In accordance with Part 13.4, the OSC imposed on Mason

PAGE 17 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

restricted client terms and conditions (“Restrictions”) because the OSC was of the opinion that Mason was

in a position of power or potential influence over potential clients.

Mason had argued that he was not a pastor or religious leader, did not hold a position of authority in the

church, and that the Restrictions would result in constructive discrimination under section 11 of Ontario’s

Human Rights Code (“Code”) by infringing on his creed rights and adversely affecting his ability to fulfill

his religious obligations. However, the OSC stated that “[t]he purpose of the [Restrictions] is not to

prohibit registrants from volunteering with charitable or religious organizations, but to protect clients or

potential clients from potential undue influence from a registrant who is in a position of power or potential

influence, whether spiritual or otherwise”. In this case the Restrictions were intended to protect vulnerable

individuals and so it was reasonable and bona fide under section 11(1)(a) of the Code.

This decision serves as a caution that if a charity or not-for-profit has directors, officers, volunteers or

employees who are registered dealers with the OSC, then depending upon the role that each individual

has within the organization, their involvement may have to be reported by the individual to the OSC as an

“outside business activity” and may potentially result in restrictions being imposed by the OSC on that

individual’s registration, including where the activities of volunteers and employees within the charity or

not-for-profit put them in a position of power or influence, as was the case in this OSC decision.

New Guide Published on Fundraising under Australian Consumer Law

By Jennifer M. Leddy

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission published A guide to the Australian Consumer Law

(the “Guide”) on December 18, 2017. The Guide outlines general principles and provides examples to

assist charities and fundraisers with understanding their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law

(“ACL”), which is set out under Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACL outlines

obligations concerning unfair practices, consumer transactions, product safety, and product-related

services, and applies to charities, not-for-profits, and fundraisers in Australia in certain circumstances.

In general, the ACL applies only to activities that are in “trade or commerce”. The Guide indicates that

since fundraising activities may occur in trade or commerce, those who engage in fundraising activities

may have obligations under the ACL. It further clarifies that a fundraising activity that is in trade or

commerce includes fundraising activities involving supplies of goods or services, fundraising by a for-

profit professional fundraiser, and “fundraising in an organized, continuous and repetitive way.”

PAGE 18 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Where a fundraising activity is in trade or commerce, or where goods or service are supplied as part of a

fundraising activity, the fundraiser must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to either

the fundraising activity or the goods and services supplied, regardless of whether there is intention to

mislead or deceive. Similarly, unconscionable conduct is prohibited under the ACL. The Guide explains

that unconscionable conduct “includes trading practices that are harsh or oppressive and go against good

conscience”, as conscience is judged by the norms of society. Further, it states that conduct may also be

unconscionable “where one party knowingly exploits the special disadvantage of another.” The Guide also

explains that there are further obligations to comply with where fundraising activities specifically involve

the supply, or promotion of the supply of a good or service, and outlines these obligations.

While the Guide applies only to Australian charities, not-for-profits and fundraisers, its general principles

and examples with regard to consumer protection may be of interest to those in the Canadian charitable

sector and, despite having no legal application in Canada, is helpful in terms of providing guidelines for

“best practices.”

IN THE PRESS

Charity & NFP Law Update – November 2017 (Carters Professional Corporation) was featured on

Taxnet Pro™ and is available online to those who have OnePass subscription privileges.

CRA Announces New Charities Education Program written by Jacqueline M. Demczur and Terrance

S. Carter was published in AFP e-wire on December 13, 2017.

Canada Revenue Agency Announces New Program to Help Charities Meet Obligations written by

Jacqueline M. Demczur and Terrance S. Carter was published in The Lawyers’ Daily on December 22,

2017.

Guidance on Economic Sanctions Aims to Help Charities with Due Diligence written by Adriel N.

Clayton was published in The Lawyer’s Daily on January 4, 2018.

PAGE 19 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

RECENT EVENTS AND PRESENTATIONS

Duties and Liabilities of Directors and Officers of Charities and NFPs was presented by Terrance S.

Carter at a conference hosted by BDO Canada LLP – Dufferin and Area Office in Orangeville, Ontario

on November 30, 2017.

UPCOMING EVENTS AND PRESENTATIONS

OBA Institute 2018 will be held on February 6, 2018 in Toronto. Terrance S. Carter will present on the

topic “The Investment Spectrum for Charities, Including Social Investments.” Details and online

registration are available on the OBA website.

CSAE Winter Summit will be held in Niagara Falls, Ontario on February 8, 2018. Theresa L.M. Man

will present on the topic “New and Exciting Changes to Ontario and Federal Corporate Legislation”

The Ottawa Region Charity and Not-for-Profit Law™ Seminar hosted by Carters Professional

Corporation will be held at the Centurion Conference Center in Ottawa, Ontario, on Thursday February

15, 2018. Guest Speakers include the Honourable Justice David Brown, Court of Appeal of Ontario and

Tony Manconi, Director General of the Charities Directorate of the CRA. Brochure and online registration

are available on our website.

CPA Not-for-Profit Executive Forum 2018 will host an Early Bird Session on February 27, 2018.

Terrance S. Carter will present on the topic “Legal Issues in Social Media for Charities and NFPs”

PAGE 20 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

CONTRIBUTORS

Editor: Terrance S. Carter

Assistant Editors: Nancy E. Claridge, Ryan M. Prendergast and Adriel N. Clayton

Michelle E. Baik, i.B.B.A., J.D. - Called to the Ontario Bar in 2015, Michelle has joined Carters’

Litigation Practice Group. Michelle has broad experience in civil litigation having articled and been an

associate with an insurance defence boutique law firm in Toronto. She worked as Legal Counsel for one

of the largest banks in Canada. Michelle obtained a degree in International Bachelor of Business

Administration from the Schulich School of Business, and her J.D. degree from the University of Windsor.

Michelle’s practice areas includes general civil, commercial and not-for-profit related litigation,

administrative law, insurance defence litigation, loss transfer claims, and personal injury litigation.

Sepal Bonni, B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D., Trade-mark Agent - Called to the Ontario Bar in 2013, Ms. Bonni

practices in the areas of intellectual property, privacy and information technology law. Prior to joining

Carters, Ms. Bonni articled and practiced with a trade-mark firm in Ottawa. Ms. Bonni represents charities

and not-for-profits in all aspects of domestic and foreign trade-mark prosecution before the Canadian

Intellectual Property Office, as well as trade-mark portfolio reviews, maintenance and consultations. Ms.

Bonni assists clients with privacy matters including the development of policies, counselling clients on

cross-border data storage concerns, and providing guidance on compliance issues.

Terrance S. Carter, B.A., LL.B, TEP, Trade-mark Agent – Managing Partner of Carters, Mr. Carter

practices in the area of charity and not-for-profit law, and is counsel to Fasken Martineau on charitable

matters. Mr. Carter is a co-author of Corporate and Practice Manual for Charitable and Not-for-Profit

Corporations (Thomson Reuters), a co-editor of Charities Legislation and Commentary (LexisNexis

Butterworths, 2017), and co-author of Branding and Copyright for Charities and Non-Profit

Organizations (2014 LexisNexis Butterworths). He is recognized as a leading expert by Lexpert and The

Best Lawyers in Canada, and is a Past Chair of the Canadian Bar Association and Ontario Bar Association

Charities and Not-for-Profit Law Sections. He is editor of www.charitylaw.ca, www.churchlaw.ca and

www.antiterrorismlaw.ca.

Sean S. Carter, B.A., LL.B. – Sean Carter is a partner with Carters and the head of the litigation practice

group at Carters. Sean has broad experience in civil litigation and joined Carters in 2012 after having

articled with and been an associate with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (Toronto office) for three years.

Sean has published extensively, co-authoring several articles and papers on anti-terrorism law, including

publications in The International Journal of Not-for-Profit Law, The Lawyers Weekly, Charity & NFP

Law Bulletin and the Anti-Terrorism and Charity Law Alert, as well as presentations to the Law Society

of Upper Canada and Ontario Bar Association CLE learning programs.

Nancy E. Claridge, B.A., M.A., L.L.B. – Called to the Ontario Bar in 2006, Nancy Claridge is a partner

with Carters practicing in the areas of charity, anti-terrorism, real estate, corporate and commercial law,

and wills and estates, in addition to being the firm’s research lawyer and assistant editor of Charity &

NFP Law Update. After obtaining a Masters degree, she spent several years developing legal databases

for LexisNexis Canada, before attending Osgoode Hall Law School where she was a Senior Editor of the

Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Editor-in-Chief of the Obiter Dicta newspaper, and was awarded the Dean’s

Gold Key Award and Student Honour Award.

PAGE 21 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Adriel N. Clayton, B.A. (Hons), J.D. - Called to the Ontario Bar in 2014, Adriel Clayton rejoins the firm

to manage Carters’ knowledge management and research division, as well as to practice in commercial

leasing and real estate. Before joining Carters, Adriel practiced real estate, corporate/commercial and

charity law in the GTA, where he focused on commercial leasing and refinancing transactions. Adriel

worked for the City of Toronto negotiating, drafting and interpreting commercial leases and enforcing

compliance. Adriel has provided in-depth research and writing for the Corporate and Practice Manual

for Charitable and Not-for-Profit Corporations.

Jacqueline M. Demczur, B.A., LL.B. – A partner with the firm, Ms. Demczur practices in charity and

not-for-profit law, including incorporation, corporate restructuring, and legal risk management reviews.

Ms. Demczur has been recognized as a leading expert in charity and not-for-profit law by Lexpert and The

Best Lawyers in Canada. She is a contributing author to Industry Canada’s Primer for Directors of Not-

For-Profit Corporations, and has written numerous articles on charity and not-for-profit issues for the

Lawyers Weekly, The Philanthropist and Charity & NFP Law Bulletin, among others. Ms. Demczur is

also a regular speaker at the annual Church & Charity Law™ Seminar.

Barry W. Kwasniewski, B.B.A., LL.B. – Mr. Kwasniewski joined Carters’ Ottawa office in 2008,

becoming a partner in 2014, to practice in the areas of employment law, charity related litigation, and risk

management. After practicing for many years as a litigation lawyer in Ottawa, Barry’s focus is now on

providing advice to charities and not-for-profits with respect to their employment and legal risk

management issues. Barry has developed an expertise in insurance law, and provides legal opinions and

advice pertaining to insurance coverage matters to charities and not-for-profits.

Jennifer Leddy, B.A., LL.B. – Ms. Leddy joined Carters’ Ottawa office in 2009, becoming a partner in

2014, to practice charity and not-for-profit law following a career in both private practice and public

policy. Ms. Leddy practiced with the Toronto office of Lang Michener prior to joining the staff of the

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). In 2005, she returned to private practice until she went

to the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency in 2008 as part of a one year Interchange

program, to work on the proposed “Guidelines on the Meaning of Advancement of Religion as a

Charitable Purpose.”

Theresa L.M. Man, B.Sc., M.Mus., LL.B., LL.M. – A partner with Carters, Ms. Man practices in the

area of charity and not-for-profit law and is recognized as a leading expert by Lexpert and Best Lawyers

in Canada. In addition to being a frequent speaker, Ms. Man is co-author of Corporate and Practice

Manual for Charitable and Not-for-Profit Corporations published by Thomson Reuters. She is an

executive member of the Charity and Not-for-Profit Section of the OBA and the CBA Charities and Not-

for-Profit Law Section. Ms. Man has also written articles for numerous publications, including The

Lawyers Weekly, The Philanthropist, Hilborn:ECS and Charity & NFP Law Bulletin.

Esther S.J. Oh, B.A., LL.B. – A partner with Carters, Ms. Oh practices in charity and not-for-profit law,

and is recognized as a leading expert in charity and not-for-profit law by Lexpert. Ms. Oh has written

numerous articles on charity and not-for-profit legal issues, including incorporation and risk management

for www.charitylaw.ca and the Charity & NFP Law Bulletin. Ms. Oh is a regular speaker at the annual

Church & Charity Law™ Seminar, and has been an invited speaker to the Canadian Bar Association,

Imagine Canada and various other organizations.

PAGE 22 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

Ryan M. Prendergast, B.A., LL.B. - Mr. Prendergast joined Carters in 2010, becoming a partner in 2018,

with a practice focus of providing corporate and tax advice to charities and non-profit organizations. Ryan

is a regular speaker and author on the topic of directors’ and officers’ liability and on the topic of anti-

spam compliance for registered charities and not-for-profit corporations, and has co-authored papers for

the Law Society of Upper Canada. In addition, Ryan has contributed to The Lawyers Weekly,

Hilborn:ECS, Ontario Bar Association Charity & Not-for-Profit Law Section Newsletter, Charity & NFP

Law Bulletins and publications on www.charitylaw.ca.

Esther Shainblum, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., CRM - From 2005 to 2017 Ms. Shainblum was General Counsel

and Chief Privacy Officer for Victorian Order of Nurses for Canada, a national, not-for-profit, charitable

home and community care organization. Before joining VON Canada, Ms. Shainblum was the Senior

Policy Advisor to the Ontario Minister of Health. Earlier in her career, Ms Shainblum practicing health

law and corporate/commercial law at McMillan Binch and spent a number of years working in policy

development at Queen’s Park. Ms. Shainblum practices in the areas of charity and not-for-profit law,

health law, privacy law and lobbyist registration.

Luis R. Chacin, LL.B., M.B.A., LL.M. - Luis graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in 2017 with a

Master of Laws in Canadian Common Law. Prior to this, he worked in the financial services industry in

Montreal and Toronto for over 9 years, assisting both individual and institutional clients. Having

previously worked as legal counsel in Venezuela, Luis has a broad perspective on both the civil and the

common law traditions. He is involved in fundraising activities for various organizations and is interested

in real estate, investments and taxation issues, particularly as they pertain to charities and non-profit corporations.

PAGE 23 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, ERRATA AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS

Links not Working: If the above links do not work from your mail program, simply copy the link text

and paste it into the address field of your internet browser.

Get on Our E-Mailing List: If you would like to be added to our electronic mailing list and receive

regular updates when new materials are added to our site, click here or send an email to info@carters.ca

with “Subscribe” in the subject line. Feel free to forward this email to anyone (internal or external to your

organization) who might be interested.

Privacy: We at Carters know how important your privacy is to you. Our relationship with you is founded

on trust and we are committed to maintaining that trust. Personal information is collected solely for the

purposes of establishing and maintaining client lists; representing our clients; and to establish and maintain

mailing lists for the distribution of publications as an information service. Your personal information will

never be sold to or shared with another party or organization. For more information, please refer to our

Privacy Policy.

Copyright: All materials from Carters are copyrighted and all rights are reserved. Please contact us for

permission to reproduce any of our materials. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer: This is a summary of current legal issues provided as an information service by Carters

Professional Corporation. It is current only as of the date of the summary and does not reflect subsequent

changes in the law. The summary is distributed with the understanding that it does not constitute legal

advice or establish the solicitor/client relationship by way of any information contained herein. The

contents are intended for general information purposes only and under no circumstances can be relied

upon for legal decision-making. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified lawyer and obtain a written

opinion concerning the specifics of their particular situation.

PAGE 24 OF 24

January 2018

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca

CARTERS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

SOCIÉTÉ PROFESSIONNELLE CARTERS

PARTNERS:

Terrance S. Carter B.A., LL.B. tcarter@carters.ca

(Counsel to Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP)

Jane Burke-Robertson B.Soc.Sci., LL.B. (1960-2013)

Theresa L.M. Man B.Sc., M.Mus., LL.B., LL.M. tman@carters.ca

Jacqueline M. Demczur B.A., LL.B. jdemczur@carters.ca

Esther S.J. Oh B.A., LL.B. estheroh@carters.ca

Nancy E. Claridge B.A., M.A., LL.B. nclaridge@carters.ca

Jennifer M. Leddy B.A., LL.B. jleddy@carters.ca

Barry W. Kwasniewski B.B.A., LL.B. bwk@carters.ca

Sean S. Carter B.A., LL.B. scarter@carters.ca

Ryan M. Prendergast B.A., LL.B. rprendergast@carters.ca

ASSOCIATES:

Esther Shainblum, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., CRM eshainblum@carters.ca

Kristen D. Morris B.A., J.D. (on parental leave) kmorris@carters.ca

Sepal Bonni B.Sc., M.Sc., J.D. sbonni@carters.ca

Adriel N. Clayton, B.A. (Hons), J.D. aclayton2@carters.ca

Michelle E. Baik, i.B.B.A., J.D. mbaik@carters.ca

STUDENT-AT-LAW

Luis R. Chacin, LL.B., M.B.A., LL.M. lchacin@carters.ca

Orangeville Office 211 Broadway, P.O. Box 440 Orangeville, Ontario, Canada L9W 1K4 Tel: (519) 942-0001 Fax: (519) 942-0300

Ottawa Office 117 Centrepointe Drive, Suite 350 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2G 5X3 Tel: (613) 235-4774 Fax: (613) 235-9838

Mississauga Meeting Location 2 Robert Speck Parkway, Suite 750 Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L4Z 1H8 Tel: (416) 675-3766 Fax: (416) 675-3765

Toronto Meeting Location Brookfield Place - TD Canada Trust Tower 161 Bay Street, 27th Floor, PO Box 508 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2S1 Tel: (416) 675-3766 Fax: (416) 675-3765

DISCLAIMER: This is a summary of current legal issues provided as an information service by Carters Professional Corporation. It is current only as of the date of the summary and does not reflect subsequent changes in the law. The summary is distributed with the understanding that it does not constitute legal advice or establish a solicitor/client relationship by way of any information contained herein. The contents are intended for general information purposes only and under no circumstances can be relied upon for legal decision-making. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified lawyer and obtain

a written opinion concerning the specifics of their particular situation. 2018 Carters Professional Corporation

Ottawa · Toronto

Mississauga · Orangeville

Toll Free: 1-877-942-0001

Carters Professional Corporation / Société professionnelle Carters

Barristers · Solicitors · Trade-mark Agents / Avocats et agents de marques de commerce

www.carters.ca www.charitylaw.ca www.antiterrorismlaw.ca